VBDC science meeting 2013 17-19 September 2013 Joly Hotel, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso See the public agenda of this event, as well as practical information
Objectives:
To share the results of the 3 year project
To highlight lessons learnt
To give recommendations to our key stakeholders (actors)
To generate content for the closure report
Agenda
Day 1 (Tuesday 17 September)
08.00 - Registration and setting up the Share Fair space
08.30 (09.00) - Welcome (Mahamoudou)
Charles Biney (director of the Volta Basin Authority), Alain Vidal (director of the Challenge Program on Water and Food), The Honorable Minister for Water Resources in Burkina Faso, Funke Cofie.
09.30 - Introduction of the general science meeting / progress so far (or introduction participants + agenda/objectives/houserules)
Presentation Funke about progress so far (15') + Q&A (15')
10.00 - Break
10.30 - Introduction of participants (or Funke's presentation) + agenda/objectives/houserules
11.00 - Oral presentations batch 1: TARGETING AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS IN THE VOLTA BASIN - Prof Da Dapola
4 presentations of 10-15' with only a few clarification questions at the end of each
TAGMI: An Interdisciplinary Decision Support Tool in Agricultural Water Management Outscaling for the Volta River Basin
Synthèse de PGIS sur les technologies de gestion de l’eau agricole au Burkina Faso
Setting Up Successful Agricultural Water Management Interventions - An Analysis of a Consultative Approach in Volta and Limpopo Using Participatory GIS
(10') 5x2 Speed talks by young professionals
Agricultural Water Management technology expansion and impact on crop yields in northern Burkina Faso (1980-2010)
After each presentation, we give 5' of buzz around the table to write comments about the presentation/paper on a flipchart sheet, reflecting on:
a) what is the message and how strong is its evidence
b) Who could use these messages to do what and
c) What might be missing in relation
10' of synthesis comments from specific anyone in plenary
13.00 - Lunch break
14.00 - Oral presentations session 2: IMPROVING SUSTAINABLE USE OF SMALL RESERVOIRS - Prof. S. Odai
6 presentations of 10'
Monitoring Small Reservoirs in the Volta Basin of Ghana
Hydrological modeling of the Boura dam
Medium scale reservoir and living conditions of households. The case of Boura in Sissili Province of Burkina Faso
Performances of irrigated scheme downstream SR: the cases of Boura (Burkina Faso) and Binaba 2 (Ghana)
Agricultural intensification and aquatic ecology: impact and trade offs
Analyser l'évolution des savoirs des usages der l'eau du barrage de Boura pour rendre compte des effets d'une démarche participative : proposition méthodologique
After each presentation, we give 5' of buzz around the table to write comments about the presentation/paper on a flipchart sheet, reflecting on -a few clarification questions at the end of each:
a) what is the message and how strong is its evidence
b) Who could use these messages to do what and
c) What might be missing in relation
16.00 Break
16.30 General reflection on session 2
Starting with a panel that has a few questions to answer
Then open to any other reaction that is not micro-focused
We collect and type up all other comments for the presenters
17.00 - Reflection on lessons learnt for the day + quick reflection on possible needs to change the approach for the next day?
17.30 - Close for the day - Finalize setting up the mini-share fair
Day 2 (Wednesday 18 September)
08.30 - Oral presentation batch 3: WATER GOVERNANCE OPTIONS IN GHANA AND BURKINA FASO - Dr. Naamiong Karbo (Director Animal Research Institute Ghana) / V4
(Same process)
Batch 1
IWRM and citizenship
Targeting interventions to reduce catchment sedimentation: The case of a sub-watershed in the White Volta Basin
Batch 2
Crossed contributions of two participative approaches in Burkina Faso and in Ghana: example of the project V4 to support of the IWRM policies
Constructing Space: The Practices of Water Policy in Burkina Faso
10.00 - Summary discussion batch 3
10.30 - Break
11.00 - Oral presentation session 4: USING INNOVATION PLATFORMS TO STRENGTHEN CROP-LIVESTOCK VALUE CHAINS - JC Poussin / V2
Batch 1
(Short intro by Augustine)
Agricultural water management and livelihoods in the crop-livestock systems of the Volta Basin
Farm-level best-fit rainwater management strategies and soil improvement methods for seed and biomass yield in a maize-soy bean intercrop
Batch 2
Impact of innovation platforms on marketing relationships
Performance of Innovation Platforms in Crop-Livestock Agro-Ecosystems in the Volta River Basin in Burkina Faso
Impact of V2 Innovation Platforms on Improvement of Crop and Livestock Production in Four Villages of Yatenga Province, Northern Burkina Faso
12.45 - Lunch break
14.00 - Oral presentations session 5: LESSONS ON INNOVATION AND CHANGE - ??
Change and innovation in the VBDC
(Optional) Lessons from implementing an R4D program
14.15 - Summary discussion batches 3 & 4
14.45 - What have we learnt from our experiences: What was good / what was missing or should have been improved???
What key messages and recommendations are coming out?
How can we use these findings most effectively, through what platforms and formats - and beyond VBDC?
What gaps have been identified and what can we do to address these?
17.15 - Presentation of results and final reflections on lessons learnt during the workshop
17.45 - Dinner
Day 3 (Thursday 19 September)
08.30 - Registration
09.00 - Knowledge Fair with break (coffee/tea served) at 10.30 and lunch served at 12.30
09.00 Welcome and introduction to the Fair
09.15 Projection of the VBDC movie in two different rooms: Francophone and Anglophone + Q&A
09.45 Knowledge Fair exploration in groups - Round 1
Splitting participants in 6 groups of 10 to 13 people - with some language groups.
Their mandate: go around the Knowledge Fair, engage with stand owners etc. and collect information to a) give feedback to the individual presenters about possible follow-up and b) possible recommendations for dissemination.
3 groups visit the posters, 3 groups visit the booths. Inside their own team they can split themselves up and collect information about the different stands. They can decide to use some of their Fair time to synthesis at the end of this round.
10.30 Coffee break
11.00 Knowledge Fair exploration in groups - Round 2 (same process as above but this time they really HAVE TO synthesise their results)
Results on posters should be given on post-it notes by the team
11.45 Synthesis session:
Each booth is examined one by one (5') and key recommendations are given to the booth owners by the visiting team (very quickly)
Poster owners come and summarise key recommendations made for their posters
Pop corn interviews about the content and process of the Knowledge Fair (OR use a smiley evaluation form they can fill out on the spot)
Final few words from the Knowledge Fair organisers vis-a-vis recommendations made and feedback gathered
12.30 Lunch break
13.15 Open space session by William's Daré
14.00 - High panel meeting for policy-makers and other big initiatives
Presentation of key (meta) messages (30') in front of the panel;
Panelists to work with project (or crossover) teams around they key messages to tease out further information, evidence, refine the recommendations, who they target and how to best bring them about (60'). This should also include a moment when the high level panelists share reflections from their interactions in each group with other high level panelists.
Panel discussion (30') where the panelists feed back their impressions and suggestions. Someone summarises key reflections and go-ahead points and moves on to the next message. That summary should also consider whether there's enough evidence from research to back up messages, and what are the implications and action points coming out of it.
Final observations and ways forward (how the VBDC team is thinking about acting upon recommendations)
Charles Biney, Alain Vidal, Ministre de l'Eau, des Aménagements Hydrauliques et de l'Assainissement.
Presentation by Funke Coffie.
Session 1 (V1) - Targeting agricultural water management interventions in the Volta Basin
Presentation by Jennie Barron on TAGMI
TAGMI = Targeting AG water Management Interventions.
Web-based interface (open source) which can be adapted at will.
Depending on the factors you get map outputs with likelihood of success for different interventions (e.g. Soil & Water Conservation, Small scale irrigation, small reservoirs).
Each indicator comes up with a set of maps that gives example data input and impact.
Maybe small reservoirs were not located on the basis of community discussions but rather on donors' preferences etc.?
TAGMI results for soil / water conservation: also don't relate to the current map of these practices.
Lessons: clear that data on social-human layers are critical but rarely available. High agreement between factors affecting outscaling across tech, countries and basins; importance of best practice in implementation (due diligence) to achieve successful outscaling; There is an opportunity for outscaling of sWC, smallholder irrigation and small reservoirs but prediction strength is low.
Recommendations to potential users: consider carefully weighing factors contributing for success and implications on map output. Opportunities to verify and/or cross check TAGMI prediction; improve data especially on human-social domains; Identify potential geographic spaces only half the story: more effort in design of appropriate implementation.
Presentation by Frank on Agricultural Water Management
...
Expert consultations in four countries, 19 in depth case studies etc.
Adoption depends on perceived positive impact. We define it by continued use more than 2 years after intervention, more farmers taking up technology during project intervention + volunteered adoption of the technology.
Critical success factors: management is critical! A third of factors mentioned related to project management e.g. early engagement with stakeholders, community owning the initiative, continuous support, clear objective, appropriate implementation and design of the technology.
Enabling factors: Communities that had previous knowledge of the technology. Dynamic, functional, peaceful communities open to innovation, clear demand from communities.
Training e.g. demo farms, observation based learning, extension services.
Ownership of the technologies if communities are part of the design.
Labour and inputs can be enabling factor or barrier.
Improved well being.
Conclusions: enabling success factors are: Technical support including training, sense of ownership, inputs like fertilisers and equipment. Q: What is describing success? A: Q: A:
Presentation by Souleymane Pare about participatory GIS studies
Indicateurs de succès : Revenu des bénéficiaires, sécurité alimentaire, nombre de bénéficiaires, durabilité des bénéfices issus de l'intervention. Facteurs explicatifs de succès : Coût de réalisation des technologies, coût d'entretien des infrastructures
Résultats : appréciation du niveau de succès des interventions: de 40 (Idéal), on a 34 à Laba etc.
Q: Comment pondérer les critères de succès ? A: On les a tous considérés au même poids et on a eu satisfaction...
Presentation by Issa Ouedraogo and Jane about ag water management review
Multiple evidence of province-scale adoption rates of at least 20-40% and a minimum of 10-20% ... ? Background: parts of Sudano Sahel and Sahel have + 10 years of re-greening. Land degradation debate: are landscapes changing by climate or humans? Little systematic evidence about successful scaling up of ag water management technology.
Purpose of study: quantify the real extent of AWM adoption. Approach: Different sources of data: national stats, remote sensing and peer-review of grey literature. Major areas doing soil/water conservation agriculture.
From literature review, mapping study areas and looking at census from national agricultural surveys. Yield curves: correlated with household conservation data from the census. We need more data points for swc but there are similar rates between the two. We calculated crop yield / capita has increased but actually only returned to previous. Not much change in centre-north and central highland.
Lessons: We need better knowledge on AWM in use for setting research and development agenda. There is knowledge but not synthesised in an accessible form. AWM technology in use beyond documented cases. More work on causality pathways between AWM food security and poverty alleviation is needed to scale.
Observations
Great work but some work remains on replicability.
Recommendations about this work are not quite specific enough to explain what's been done.
Good work but want to know more about...?
Some factors e.g. faible / moyen / fort etc. are not clear - are these factors correlated or not?
Successful factors and the modeling approach was interesting (e.g. basin scale approach)
The results of the model outcomes distinct from the field are interesting - I'm interested in Jenny's interpretation about capacity to take up results
Identifying questions / inputs for impact etc. Research results are more oriented to our dev partners and ministries etc. I hope there's a good dialogue to have them interpret these results...
Last point is related to the presentation of critical success factors etc. and access to inputs / fertilizers seemed key but I would caution about the need to focus on these external drivers. Can we look at these drivers as opportunities to relate to other projects for more sustainability.
Many presentations - we learnt a lot. Re: the TAGMI model we have learnt that we can adapt it to other situations and domains. This is very relevant for natural, perhaps less so for socio-economic factors. We may look at these needs in another way.
In terms of the synthesis there's many indicators but if these could be weighed differently it would be more interesting because e.g. financial accessibility is not at the same level as other factors.
Good to learn that re-greening of Sahel is effective and it'd be good to value small scale irrigation because impact is not yet perceived.
Session 2 - Improving sustainable use of small reservoirs (V3)
Presentation by Frank about Monitoring small reservoirs in the Volta Basin in Ghana
Outlook: evaporation estimates, comparison with flux measurements, scale effects and boundary conditions of evaporation from SR.
Presentation by T. Fowe about the hydrological balance of the Boura dam in Burkina Faso
Lessons:
Un stock d'eau important reste encore dans la retenue surtout au-dessus de la cote de prise (presque 80cm) à la fin sèche.
Faible valorisation du potentiel d'eau utilisable
Volumes d'eau stockés plus disponibles à l'évaporation...
Recommandations: La population locale doit davantage s'approprier de l'ouvrage qui leur est destiné (entretien régulier nécessaire); élaborer un calendrier stable d'activités par les différents groupes d'usagers de l'eau au niveau de Boura.
Q&A about these presentations
Q: Volumes d'infiltration qui sont utilisés avec du pompage sont en fait du stockage d'eau souterraine - a-t-on une idée du potentiel de stockage d'eau souterraine derrière d'autres réservoirs ?
A: Nous avons un volume annuel de 1.5 mio m3. Il y a des especes de mares derrière la digue qui demeurent. Il doit y avoir
Q: 6 Mio cubic meters incontrôlés sur 12 - est-ce uniquement en surcote du barrage ou cela sert-il à stocker de l'eau - et sinon où va l'eau ?
A: Les 6 millions de mètres cube... Le barrage a encore 1m d'eau au dessus. Le barrage de Boura se renouvelle ... Ce qui ressort se jette dans le Mouhoun, il n'y a pas d'autre barrage en aval.
Comment: quantitatively, each year is different to the previous one. Qualitatively there are many ecosystem services to connect to the river.
As researchers you are doing very well but someone mentioned the issue of research fatigue. If we don't think about them it will have negative consequences on catchment and on us researchers. The basin belonging to several countries and authorities managing data/information etc. and working with researchers for the benefit of the catchment: There's a need for a stronger representation of authorities (e.g. VBA) to apply these. If e.g. VBA has not built their expertise on this we will have failed.
Community research without seeing impact. People come for MSc and PhD research and are gone. Who is the best person to advise whether we have done this or that. We want to see the impact on the lives of the people. We need to task VBA to do more. Donors want to see quicker results. The mission of the new project is different but the project team will be going to the same people. We want to involve VBA more closely, conveying our vision.
Counter comment: VBA and the sense of ownership.
Presentation by JC Poussin about performances d'aménagements irrigués depuis un petit réservoir
Improvements are possible without doing more research. Rice price varies from 46 to 151 FCFA/kg. If low rice price, low margin/ha and low labour productivity thus not very productive to cultivate rice vs. vegetables etc. When irrigation network is degraded, no cultivation of other crops. We discussed with various producers in Binaba in October 2012. Two types of issues: commercialisation and water management.
In Boura, problems of rice fertilisation, problem of tomato commercialisation, dam state and free grazing.
Performances of irrigated agriculture: not so great and with very little impact on household economics, but diversified activities.
IWRM-wise, many facets to managing small reservoirs. Maintain resources, monitor impacts of activities on the quality of resources.
Managing is defining priorities: In Binaba, rehabilitate the area; In Boura repair
Presentation by Philippe Cecchi about agricultural intensification and aquatic ecology (impacts and tradeoffs)
Main message: In the Boura lake, evidence or eutrophication and of contamination. Problems of macrophytes related to e.g. nutrients, algae, turbidity of water, hydrodynamics, fish... Boura stakeholders: Diagnosis by V3 project, remediation by ???
Question of pesticides, origins of nutrients and allolepathy. Comparative study in three sites with passive samplers, macroinvertebrates, surveys, allelopathy (lab analyses).
Three sites considered in the methodology... Bala - pristine site Bama - impact site Boura - contamination status?
Findings: 5 herbicides and 1 insecticide found in Boura.
All farmers are using pesticides and fertilisers. quantities of fertilisers proportional to the surface of inland valley fields.
Lessons: polyactivity of households in Boura, management strategies and footprints of ecological disturbances in Boura?
Recommendations: For farmers to control the original and quality of phytosanitary products. For managers to preserve .
Presentation by William's Daré about evolution of water users' knowledge to assess effects of participatory approaches etc.
Difficulties to assess the effects of participatory approaches (PA) Every evaluation situation is unique; rare interested in the effects (tangible artifacts and side-effects on e.g. behaviour, attitude, knowledge); multiple dimensions of learning; time and scale frame especially with adaptive PA?
Focus assessment of PA on knowledge. Why knowledge? It's the first step of a learning process. Information leading to knowledge. Knowledge is dynamic (circulation and exchange) and relates to individual and collective learning. Knowledge about the management of small reservoirs, related to technical/ social/ economic/ political knowledge and knowledge about the PA. Elements of the method: field visit, workshop observation and sociological interviews (to, t+2months, t+12). People involved: users, non users and researchers. Results: Technical knowledge
Boura suffers from overgrazing of project activities (development & research)...
New knowledge about ecology (link with PA artifacts: water level, red beacon etc., ecology of some algae etc.)
New knowledge about bad practices e.g. not cleaning inputs tins near the dam.
Social and political knowledge (few, organised in farming groups etc.) Economic knowledge Knowledge about the participatory approach: participants engagement? Only the few people directly engaged in the activities know the project. Circulation of knowledge outside this first circle is weak; importance of intermediary tools to formalise knowledge (beacon, PPT, piezometer). Adaptiveness of the process? A clear message about the objectives of the V3 but still expectations. Further investigations are needed. Last round of researchers interviews.
Conclusions/discussion: Interest and limits of the analysis framework: some knowledge seems already translated into practices. Some heuristic interest despite the simplification. If we are not clear on the approach followed we don't address the expectations well enough. Issues at stake: scaling up of the results outside the first circle? Answer to local expectations in terms of development issues?
... lost all notes from this morning because of bad internet connection ...
Presentation by ?? about farm-level best-fit rainwater management strategies and soil improvement methods for seed and biomass yield in a maize-soy bean intercrop
Lessons learned:
IPs are important in PAR for problem identification and information sharing
IWRM strategies at farm level have potential to close yield gaps with food security outcomes
Colossal plant biomass generated has potential to address livestock dry season
Presentation by Zewdie about impact of innovation platforms on marketing relationships
Main messages:
The IPs have created an additional option for value chain actors
The interaction through the platforms contributes to reduction in transaction costs and improvement in access to markets
No sizable market niche has been created although there is potential for the future
Changing nature of ag research in the past decade with more multi-dimensional and co-evolutionary processes (tech, org'l and institutional innovations creating synergies). SCP hypothesis (structure, conduct and performance) Structure looks at membership composition, types of stakeholders, availability of staff and resources etc.
Results: Improved communication generally, more information available. Three factors on communication and information sharing explain 71% of the 10 statements used. Four factors on market access explain also 71% of the statements used.
Regression results: Improvment in access to input and output markets is related to improvements in overall communication or interaction, women have better access to market than men... use of the media (radio etc.) reduces likelihood of bypassing intermediaries... Improved knowledge because of trainings and meetings. Knowledge on price standardisation, commercialisation and use of weighing scales... Improved knowledge on crop and livestock production. Improved post-harvest management and timing of sale, knowledge on cooperatives...
Lessons: IPs played a role in improving communication and info-sharing and opened new options; Proximity to market centres and level of income of the members seem to be key determinants to access to market. It is not time to judge about impact. IPs shouldn't be left alone (further education on commercial production, marketing record keeping etc.), evaluating the overall impact on livelihoods is also required.
Presentation by Kees Swaans about performance of IPs in crop-livestock agro-ecosystems in the Volta River Basin in Burkina Faso
Main messages ?? IPs are bringing different actors to interact together. Underlying principles: representative and inclusive, nonlinear interaction, addressing key constraints/opportunities in the IP, participatory and involves multiple actors etc. IP in V2 is a mechanism for adaptive management. Monitoring of IPs established in Koubri and Ouahigouya (March 2012 - June 2013). IP meetings every quarter. Tools used: IP register, IP activity report and member assessment of IP performance. Assessment focused on the IP functioning. Outcomes: In Koubri, almost all aspects have improved in Koubri but in Ouahigouya, not... Participation quite consistent. Woman to man participation ratio 3 to 1, which is higher than in some other cases. Different types of actors: producers, dev practitioners and technical services mostly represented. Main activities carried out... Assessment among IP members to see how they appreciated different factors of IPs.
Results: overall all six indicators increased over time. Specifically:
Conflict resolution scored higher
Gender only had a significant effect in decision-making (women scoring lower than men)
In Ouahigouya, lower scores for for participation in decision making, quality of facilitation, perceived benefit compared to Koubri.
Technical services gave lower scores to indicators than producers
Researchers gave higher score for perceived benefits than producers
Lessons:
Improved linkages
No quick win, requires long term planning
Issues should be of common interest and clearly articulated
Quality facilitation critical to performance
Systematic monitoring and documentation of IP activities indispensable for performance assessment
Caution: self-assessment data need to be validated.
Presentation by Gabriel Teno about Impact of V2 innovation platforms on improvement of crop and livestock production in four villages of Yatenga province (BF)
Specific objectives: ...
Focus on coordiantion and planning and other objectives set by IP.
Study area in Yatenga in Northern Burkina Faso, with 57 IP members and 9 facilitators.
Discussion on methodology: Impact assessment through focus group discussions and Likert scale measurement... this presents limits according to conventional approaches. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative approaches is more appropriate.
Results and discussion:
(missed bits)
Small data analysis due to small number of IP members.
Positive impact of IP on its members' practices. Strengthening of human and social capacity...
Recommendations:
Session 5 - Presentation by Karen Greenough on change and innovation
...
Communication and innovation - communication is vital for it.
Meetings cannot provide needed comprehensive information
Programs need to study how people communicate within the projects and programs.
Projects and innovation:
VBDC changes and 'innovations' - new interactions, new technolgoies and processes (e.g. TAGMI, improved crop varieties, rainwater harvesting techniques etc.)
Fostering innovation? People...
R4D involves: a multitude of very different kinds of people with different goals and understandings. They don't always understand each other, they can't always talk to each other, their goals may conflict with each other and they may only want 'stuff' from each other.
Fostering innovation? Time... and Investment...
Who owns the development? Reluctancy from researchers to give up control...
Review of the sessions 4 & 5
First reviewer (Kekele)
Access to water is important. Production is important in IP
Re: impact of IPs, we have collected qualitative and quantitative information which is very important
We have looked at information sharing, capacity strengthening to boost prodution and market access (important
Second reviewer (Khumbulani)
Mixed crop-livestock...
Increase in the access to information etc. improves food security
Maize and soy bean... requiring different skills etc.
...
IPs are on the scene for the past 3 years - they may leverage more later
IP members - improvement of human/social capacity through
IP related work will require more work for food security
Third reviewer (Alex)
How can this be outscaled? The IPs seem generally positive but how do you do this at a large scale?
Who to train to make this happen? What role does the government play?
If decreasing resources go into extension agents, how do we prioritise: IPs or extension agents?
Who trains whom?
IPs have been applied in certain contexts - water development consultations...
Do you put resources in IPs or at a lower level?
Tim Williams's reactions about the VBDC science meeting
Very delighted about the progress made over the past year.
Some reactions about the past 2 days: It's work in progress but the program is coming to an end. How to balance this ironic situation?
2 categories of results: a) very robust ones that can be shared and b) work that is not yet satisfactorily shareable.
We are not looking for the perfect experimental design but in the context of developments in the basin, there are caveats.
We have to communicate the results that we collected.
Technical constraints about the small reservoirs + economic outcomes. E.g. Profitability of rice (which is top of the agenda of both countries). We have the knowledge to manage small reservoirs but what are implications for policy-makers? Whatever we do at local level we have to narrow down the range of profitability.
The robust results can be 'packaged in a way that...
We have to use research to lead to development outcomes and we need to be careful about the fact that some of the methods are not compatible with others...
We've generated a momentum and the initial results are promising. CPWF is coming to and end but we can launch additional work... Thor Windham-Wright can mobilise his expertise to disseminate results. We receive calls from donors about project activities etc. The beauty of what you've done is to say that a particular activity ongoing can be taken further... That is applicable to CG and non-CG centres.
Tim commanding the project leaders for the nurturing of young professionals. It's gratifying that individuals are coming to articulate confidently - which means someone is helping them behind the scene.
That gives hope!
Alain Vidal's questions
Still waiting for an answer to the question about what is the potential of small reservoirs for water storage... to answer at coffee break.
For our R4D to be convincing, we need to reach policy makers. There has been a lot of engagement with local authorities etc. but between farmers and researchers we need to clarify this:
What is the confidence we can invest in our results - what is their replicability for possible interventions?
How can we ensure that policy-makers change their behaviour and support innovation? Those engaged in the project can circulate the knowledge from it and it's key to think about who we have engaged in our project to use as messengers for political messages...
Finally, when talking about small reservoirs, IPs etc. how many people are we talking about? How many will benefit from innovations? We need to say sthg about other income sources...
Synthesis world café (1): Group results
All groups had to ponder the following questions: what are key messages, what can we do about it (who can do sthg about this) and hat are gaps or missing elements to address in the future. Group 1 (francophone) Question 1 (key messages)
Importance of 'participatory approaches' and innovation platforms;
Important to identify individual engagement and collective action + adaptation on pre-defined questions which may however evolve over time
Positive impact of AWM on agricultural productivity
Difficult to operationalise research results in socio-political contexts that keep on evolving
Question 2 (what can we do)
Take part to political dialogue and organise advocacy activities to communicate vis-a-vis political actors
Get closer to private sector and use mass media
Use media that are directly accessible for producers (radio, cell phones etc.)
Organise decentralised open days ('portes ouvertes') e.g. roving caravan
Promote upscaling (adoption) via CBOs
Question 3 (gaps)
Insert the project in long term dynamics / initiatives
Institutionalise project elements (how to support institutions?)
Lack of integration between different V projects
Too ambitious a project, too complex, too short
The implementation of the project has not allowed to reach original objectives (impacts on end users)
Access to information and markets are preconditions to improving producers' livelihoods
Innovation platforms are a participatory approach for information-sharing and capacity strengthening between value chain actors
APs are a very important tools to promote agriculture in Southern countries. Feedback towards producers is crucial, as soon as results are available.
TAGMI is a tool that helps take decisions
We are not tapping well enough into the potential of the water potential of the Volta basin
Farmer participation in research (for development) projects is a success indicator for technology uptake
Good water management may contribute to food security in developing countries
We need to protect water resources increasingly well against desertification
Question 2 (what can we do)
Involve producers in the decision-making process
Sensitise beneficiaries from the start of the project to better understand the objectives
Ensure implementation of the project until the very end
Involve ministries through signature of memorandum of understanding
Communicate research results vis-a-vis producers
Develop and disseminate documents after research results are published
Involve farmer leaders in communicating research results
Question 3 (gaps)
Producers are considered as beneficiaries, not as actors (weak participation in decision making)
There is a problem with the perception of the project by certain people as solely funding support for their activities as opposed to just technical support.
The abrupt funding decline for research projects
Gaps in impact evaluation due to the short duration of the project (2 years only in V2 / IP)
Lack of motivation for governmental technical services to follow up with field activities (logistical support)
Not enough historical data on the sites (sites chosen were not relevant?)
Group 3 (anglophone)
Question 1 (key messages)
s
Question 2 (what can we do)
s
Question 3 (gaps)
(V2) Capacitating researchers in facilitation of IPs or other stakeholder meeting
(General) Most of the interesting researchers have not indicated how the results can contribute to changes in livelihoods
(V3) The scale of the impact and the intensification is not known
(General) The research outcomes should be put into use
(General) Synthesis of baseline information and research outcomes to improve future interventions
Group 3
Question 1 (key messages)
(V2) IPs have an impact on improving livelihoods BUT current results may not be significant to conclude IP impact
(V1) Still (after 30+ years), opportunities to support further AWM adoption-adaptation in basin to improve farm income and livelihood with marginal water resources impact (multiple evidence)
AWM review shows 20-40% current SWC
TAGMI shows opportunities to outscale
Water modeling suggests marginal hydrological impact
(V3) Unmanaged intensification (around SR) can have serious health, well being and ecosystems impacts
(V3) To derive maximum benefit from bio-physical research evidence (on water use and management) emerging from the VBDC, appropriate complementary policies are needed. Policies at local, regional and national level: implication, engagement with policy makers are different levels (local district assembly, regional assembly, national parliament)
(All V projects) Tools, models developed to aid decision making and facilitate capacity building.
Question 2 (what can we do)
s
Question 3 (gaps)
s
Group 3
Question 1 (key messages)
s
Question 2 (what can we do)
s
Question 3 (gaps)
s
Group 3
Question 1 (key messages)
s
Question 2 (what can we do)
s
Question 3 (gaps)
s
Synthesis world café (2): Most striking points from each group
Group 1 (FR)
Important participation but difficult to do research practically;
A lot of communication vis-a-vis policy-makers using media and visa a vis producers (radio, cell phone communication) and organising 'open doors' with mobile caravans to work with
Lack of integration across projects (too much, too ambitious, not enough real impact on end users)
Group 2 (FR)
Key work on information because it's essential;
Innovation platforms are a participatory approach to strengthen capacities among value chain actors;
Weak use of water potential in the basin.
To do better: We have to produce 'vulgarisation' for farmers to use research results
Gap: Producers are seen as beneficiaries but not as actors in the process
Group 3 (EN)
IPs should be taken forward and we also identified it as a gap
There are gaps for the improvement of strengthening evidence
Handing over, a lot to unpack...
Group 4: (EN)
A lot of evidence and much potential to upscale
But how do we do this upscaling? Why are some communities - we need relevant policies at relevant levels to be conducive for policy uptake.
We discussed the evidence of a few studies e.g. small reservoirs - we need meta-data research on what's happening at a larger level and we need to know how many people are supported by these dams and what may be the main constraints / opportunities at the large scale - why are some successful and others not and learn from case studies to gather anecdotal evidence
Group 5 (EN)
Stressing the importance of participatory approach
There are innovations, adaptations, but they need support (markets, policies, services, institutions)
Importance of integration - between health, environment, production, between different levels (local, regional, national) and with other initiatives... How can we be a broker?
Final words from Alain for day 2
Good news: I got answer elements from water storage from small reservoirs.
Rich notes from world café but generally you have summarised what I could have done.
Two good ideas I heard: the mobile caravan - roving seminar to share results - and access to information and markets / it's the potential of ICTs etc. It's sthg that donors are interested in and that should interest WLE.
I haven't seen the whole coherence but there is tomorrow still so thank you.
Funke's final comments
Thank you all, participants, improvised facilitators, WLE participants etc.
We are going to take tonight for additional discussions...
Tomorrow is even more important than today for us.
What are we going to do with these results? We have picked out some ideas - some partners have arrived from Ghana and Burkina Faso and we want to find out more about what we have done and what we can do.
We are expecting some of these people.
17-19 September 2013
Joly Hotel, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
See the public agenda of this event, as well as practical information
Objectives:
Agenda
Day 1 (Tuesday 17 September)
Day 2 (Wednesday 18 September)
Day 3 (Thursday 19 September)
Background materials
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GK1Jr--72cEjeUzcpKm5JTi99aMOIr5xElQXr4zDNlI/edit?pli=1
Participants
See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GK1Jr--72cEjeUzcpKm5JTi99aMOIr5xElQXr4zDNlI/edit?pli=1
Outputs
Notes of the event
Welcome and introductions
Charles Biney, Alain Vidal, Ministre de l'Eau, des Aménagements Hydrauliques et de l'Assainissement.Presentation by Funke Coffie.
Session 1 (V1) - Targeting agricultural water management interventions in the Volta Basin
Presentation by Jennie Barron on TAGMI
TAGMI = Targeting AG water Management Interventions.Web-based interface (open source) which can be adapted at will.
Depending on the factors you get map outputs with likelihood of success for different interventions (e.g. Soil & Water Conservation, Small scale irrigation, small reservoirs).
Each indicator comes up with a set of maps that gives example data input and impact.
Maybe small reservoirs were not located on the basis of community discussions but rather on donors' preferences etc.?
TAGMI results for soil / water conservation: also don't relate to the current map of these practices.
Lessons: clear that data on social-human layers are critical but rarely available. High agreement between factors affecting outscaling across tech, countries and basins; importance of best practice in implementation (due diligence) to achieve successful outscaling; There is an opportunity for outscaling of sWC, smallholder irrigation and small reservoirs but prediction strength is low.
Recommendations to potential users: consider carefully weighing factors contributing for success and implications on map output. Opportunities to verify and/or cross check TAGMI prediction; improve data especially on human-social domains; Identify potential geographic spaces only half the story: more effort in design of appropriate implementation.
Presentation by Frank on Agricultural Water Management
...
Expert consultations in four countries, 19 in depth case studies etc.
Adoption depends on perceived positive impact. We define it by continued use more than 2 years after intervention, more farmers taking up technology during project intervention + volunteered adoption of the technology.
Critical success factors: management is critical! A third of factors mentioned related to project management e.g. early engagement with stakeholders, community owning the initiative, continuous support, clear objective, appropriate implementation and design of the technology.
Enabling factors: Communities that had previous knowledge of the technology. Dynamic, functional, peaceful communities open to innovation, clear demand from communities.
Training e.g. demo farms, observation based learning, extension services.
Ownership of the technologies if communities are part of the design.
Labour and inputs can be enabling factor or barrier.
Improved well being.
Conclusions: enabling success factors are: Technical support including training, sense of ownership, inputs like fertilisers and equipment.
Q: What is describing success?
A:
Q:
A:
Presentation by Souleymane Pare about participatory GIS studies
Indicateurs de succès : Revenu des bénéficiaires, sécurité alimentaire, nombre de bénéficiaires, durabilité des bénéfices issus de l'intervention.
Facteurs explicatifs de succès : Coût de réalisation des technologies, coût d'entretien des infrastructures
Résultats : appréciation du niveau de succès des interventions: de 40 (Idéal), on a 34 à Laba etc.
Q: Comment pondérer les critères de succès ?
A: On les a tous considérés au même poids et on a eu satisfaction...
Presentation by Issa Ouedraogo and Jane about ag water management review
Multiple evidence of province-scale adoption rates of at least 20-40% and a minimum of 10-20% ... ?Background: parts of Sudano Sahel and Sahel have + 10 years of re-greening. Land degradation debate: are landscapes changing by climate or humans? Little systematic evidence about successful scaling up of ag water management technology.
Purpose of study: quantify the real extent of AWM adoption.
Approach: Different sources of data: national stats, remote sensing and peer-review of grey literature.
Major areas doing soil/water conservation agriculture.
From literature review, mapping study areas and looking at census from national agricultural surveys.
Yield curves: correlated with household conservation data from the census. We need more data points for swc but there are similar rates between the two.
We calculated crop yield / capita has increased but actually only returned to previous. Not much change in centre-north and central highland.
Lessons: We need better knowledge on AWM in use for setting research and development agenda. There is knowledge but not synthesised in an accessible form. AWM technology in use beyond documented cases. More work on causality pathways between AWM food security and poverty alleviation is needed to scale.
Observations
Session 2 - Improving sustainable use of small reservoirs (V3)
Presentation by Frank about Monitoring small reservoirs in the Volta Basin in Ghana
Outlook: evaporation estimates, comparison with flux measurements, scale effects and boundary conditions of evaporation from SR.Presentation by T. Fowe about the hydrological balance of the Boura dam in Burkina Faso
Lessons:Recommandations: La population locale doit davantage s'approprier de l'ouvrage qui leur est destiné (entretien régulier nécessaire); élaborer un calendrier stable d'activités par les différents groupes d'usagers de l'eau au niveau de Boura.
Q&A about these presentations
Presentation by JC Poussin about performances d'aménagements irrigués depuis un petit réservoir
Improvements are possible without doing more research.Rice price varies from 46 to 151 FCFA/kg.
If low rice price, low margin/ha and low labour productivity thus not very productive to cultivate rice vs. vegetables etc.
When irrigation network is degraded, no cultivation of other crops.
We discussed with various producers in Binaba in October 2012.
Two types of issues: commercialisation and water management.
In Boura, problems of rice fertilisation, problem of tomato commercialisation, dam state and free grazing.
Performances of irrigated agriculture: not so great and with very little impact on household economics, but diversified activities.
IWRM-wise, many facets to managing small reservoirs. Maintain resources, monitor impacts of activities on the quality of resources.
Managing is defining priorities: In Binaba, rehabilitate the area; In Boura repair
Presentation by Philippe Cecchi about agricultural intensification and aquatic ecology (impacts and tradeoffs)
Main message:In the Boura lake, evidence or eutrophication and of contamination.
Problems of macrophytes related to e.g. nutrients, algae, turbidity of water, hydrodynamics, fish...
Boura stakeholders:
Diagnosis by V3 project, remediation by ???
Question of pesticides, origins of nutrients and allolepathy.
Comparative study in three sites with passive samplers, macroinvertebrates, surveys, allelopathy (lab analyses).
Three sites considered in the methodology...
Bala - pristine site
Bama - impact site
Boura - contamination status?
Findings: 5 herbicides and 1 insecticide found in Boura.
All farmers are using pesticides and fertilisers. quantities of fertilisers proportional to the surface of inland valley fields.
Lessons: polyactivity of households in Boura, management strategies and footprints of ecological disturbances in Boura?
Recommendations: For farmers to control the original and quality of phytosanitary products. For managers to preserve .
Presentation by William's Daré about evolution of water users' knowledge to assess effects of participatory approaches etc.
Difficulties to assess the effects of participatory approaches (PA)Every evaluation situation is unique; rare interested in the effects (tangible artifacts and side-effects on e.g. behaviour, attitude, knowledge); multiple dimensions of learning; time and scale frame especially with adaptive PA?
Focus assessment of PA on knowledge.
Why knowledge? It's the first step of a learning process. Information leading to knowledge. Knowledge is dynamic (circulation and exchange) and relates to individual and collective learning.
Knowledge about the management of small reservoirs, related to technical/ social/ economic/ political knowledge and knowledge about the PA.
Elements of the method: field visit, workshop observation and sociological interviews (to, t+2months, t+12).
People involved: users, non users and researchers.
Results:
Technical knowledge
- Boura suffers from overgrazing of project activities (development & research)...
- New knowledge about ecology (link with PA artifacts: water level, red beacon etc., ecology of some algae etc.)
- New knowledge about bad practices e.g. not cleaning inputs tins near the dam.
Social and political knowledge (few, organised in farming groups etc.)Economic knowledge
Knowledge about the participatory approach: participants engagement? Only the few people directly engaged in the activities know the project. Circulation of knowledge outside this first circle is weak; importance of intermediary tools to formalise knowledge (beacon, PPT, piezometer).
Adaptiveness of the process? A clear message about the objectives of the V3 but still expectations. Further investigations are needed. Last round of researchers interviews.
Conclusions/discussion:
Interest and limits of the analysis framework: some knowledge seems already translated into practices. Some heuristic interest despite the simplification.
If we are not clear on the approach followed we don't address the expectations well enough.
Issues at stake: scaling up of the results outside the first circle? Answer to local expectations in terms of development issues?
... lost all notes from this morning because of bad internet connection ...
Presentation by ?? about farm-level best-fit rainwater management strategies and soil improvement methods for seed and biomass yield in a maize-soy bean intercrop
Lessons learned:
Presentation by Zewdie about impact of innovation platforms on marketing relationships
Main messages:- The IPs have created an additional option for value chain actors
- The interaction through the platforms contributes to reduction in transaction costs and improvement in access to markets
- No sizable market niche has been created although there is potential for the future
Changing nature of ag research in the past decade with more multi-dimensional and co-evolutionary processes (tech, org'l and institutional innovations creating synergies).SCP hypothesis (structure, conduct and performance)
Structure looks at membership composition, types of stakeholders, availability of staff and resources etc.
Results: Improved communication generally, more information available.
Three factors on communication and information sharing explain 71% of the 10 statements used.
Four factors on market access explain also 71% of the statements used.
Regression results: Improvment in access to input and output markets is related to improvements in overall communication or interaction, women have better access to market than men... use of the media (radio etc.) reduces likelihood of bypassing intermediaries...
Improved knowledge because of trainings and meetings.
Knowledge on price standardisation, commercialisation and use of weighing scales...
Improved knowledge on crop and livestock production. Improved post-harvest management and timing of sale, knowledge on cooperatives...
Lessons:
IPs played a role in improving communication and info-sharing and opened new options; Proximity to market centres and level of income of the members seem to be key determinants to access to market. It is not time to judge about impact.
IPs shouldn't be left alone (further education on commercial production, marketing record keeping etc.), evaluating the overall impact on livelihoods is also required.
Presentation by Kees Swaans about performance of IPs in crop-livestock agro-ecosystems in the Volta River Basin in Burkina Faso
Main messages ??IPs are bringing different actors to interact together. Underlying principles: representative and inclusive, nonlinear interaction, addressing key constraints/opportunities in the IP, participatory and involves multiple actors etc.
IP in V2 is a mechanism for adaptive management.
Monitoring of IPs established in Koubri and Ouahigouya (March 2012 - June 2013). IP meetings every quarter.
Tools used: IP register, IP activity report and member assessment of IP performance.
Assessment focused on the IP functioning.
Outcomes:
In Koubri, almost all aspects have improved in Koubri but in Ouahigouya, not...
Participation quite consistent.
Woman to man participation ratio 3 to 1, which is higher than in some other cases.
Different types of actors: producers, dev practitioners and technical services mostly represented.
Main activities carried out...
Assessment among IP members to see how they appreciated different factors of IPs.
Results: overall all six indicators increased over time.
Specifically:
Lessons:
Presentation by Gabriel Teno about Impact of V2 innovation platforms on improvement of crop and livestock production in four villages of Yatenga province (BF)
Specific objectives: ...Focus on coordiantion and planning and other objectives set by IP.
Study area in Yatenga in Northern Burkina Faso, with 57 IP members and 9 facilitators.
Discussion on methodology: Impact assessment through focus group discussions and Likert scale measurement... this presents limits according to conventional approaches. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative approaches is more appropriate.
Results and discussion:
(missed bits)
Small data analysis due to small number of IP members.
Positive impact of IP on its members' practices. Strengthening of human and social capacity...
Recommendations:
Session 5 - Presentation by Karen Greenough on change and innovation
...Communication and innovation - communication is vital for it.
Meetings cannot provide needed comprehensive information
Programs need to study how people communicate within the projects and programs.
Projects and innovation:
VBDC changes and 'innovations' - new interactions, new technolgoies and processes (e.g. TAGMI, improved crop varieties, rainwater harvesting techniques etc.)
Fostering innovation? People...
R4D involves: a multitude of very different kinds of people with different goals and understandings. They don't always understand each other, they can't always talk to each other, their goals may conflict with each other and they may only want 'stuff' from each other.
Fostering innovation? Time... and Investment...
Who owns the development? Reluctancy from researchers to give up control...
Review of the sessions 4 & 5
First reviewer (Kekele)
- Access to water is important. Production is important in IP
- Re: impact of IPs, we have collected qualitative and quantitative information which is very important
- We have looked at information sharing, capacity strengthening to boost prodution and market access (important
Second reviewer (Khumbulani)- Mixed crop-livestock...
- Increase in the access to information etc. improves food security
- Maize and soy bean... requiring different skills etc.
- ...
- IPs are on the scene for the past 3 years - they may leverage more later
- IP members - improvement of human/social capacity through
- IP related work will require more work for food security
Third reviewer (Alex)Tim Williams's reactions about the VBDC science meeting
Very delighted about the progress made over the past year.Some reactions about the past 2 days: It's work in progress but the program is coming to an end. How to balance this ironic situation?
2 categories of results: a) very robust ones that can be shared and b) work that is not yet satisfactorily shareable.
We are not looking for the perfect experimental design but in the context of developments in the basin, there are caveats.
We have to communicate the results that we collected.
Technical constraints about the small reservoirs + economic outcomes. E.g. Profitability of rice (which is top of the agenda of both countries). We have the knowledge to manage small reservoirs but what are implications for policy-makers? Whatever we do at local level we have to narrow down the range of profitability.
The robust results can be 'packaged in a way that...
We have to use research to lead to development outcomes and we need to be careful about the fact that some of the methods are not compatible with others...
We've generated a momentum and the initial results are promising. CPWF is coming to and end but we can launch additional work... Thor Windham-Wright can mobilise his expertise to disseminate results. We receive calls from donors about project activities etc. The beauty of what you've done is to say that a particular activity ongoing can be taken further... That is applicable to CG and non-CG centres.
Tim commanding the project leaders for the nurturing of young professionals. It's gratifying that individuals are coming to articulate confidently - which means someone is helping them behind the scene.
That gives hope!
Alain Vidal's questions
Still waiting for an answer to the question about what is the potential of small reservoirs for water storage... to answer at coffee break.For our R4D to be convincing, we need to reach policy makers. There has been a lot of engagement with local authorities etc. but between farmers and researchers we need to clarify this:
Synthesis world café (1): Group results
All groups had to ponder the following questions: what are key messages, what can we do about it (who can do sthg about this) and hat are gaps or missing elements to address in the future.Group 1 (francophone)
Question 1 (key messages)
- Importance of 'participatory approaches' and innovation platforms;
- Important to identify individual engagement and collective action + adaptation on pre-defined questions which may however evolve over time
- Positive impact of AWM on agricultural productivity
- Difficult to operationalise research results in socio-political contexts that keep on evolving
Question 2 (what can we do)- Take part to political dialogue and organise advocacy activities to communicate vis-a-vis political actors
- Get closer to private sector and use mass media
- Use media that are directly accessible for producers (radio, cell phones etc.)
- Organise decentralised open days ('portes ouvertes') e.g. roving caravan
- Promote upscaling (adoption) via CBOs
Question 3 (gaps)Group 2 (francophone)
Questions 1 & 2 (key messages & recommendations)
- Access to information and markets are preconditions to improving producers' livelihoods
- Innovation platforms are a participatory approach for information-sharing and capacity strengthening between value chain actors
- APs are a very important tools to promote agriculture in Southern countries. Feedback towards producers is crucial, as soon as results are available.
- TAGMI is a tool that helps take decisions
- We are not tapping well enough into the potential of the water potential of the Volta basin
- Farmer participation in research (for development) projects is a success indicator for technology uptake
- Good water management may contribute to food security in developing countries
- We need to protect water resources increasingly well against desertification
Question 2 (what can we do)- Involve producers in the decision-making process
- Sensitise beneficiaries from the start of the project to better understand the objectives
- Ensure implementation of the project until the very end
- Involve ministries through signature of memorandum of understanding
- Communicate research results vis-a-vis producers
- Develop and disseminate documents after research results are published
- Involve farmer leaders in communicating research results
Question 3 (gaps)Group 3 (anglophone)
Question 1 (key messages)
- s
Question 2 (what can we do)- s
Question 3 (gaps)Group 3
Question 1 (key messages)
- (V2) IPs have an impact on improving livelihoods BUT current results may not be significant to conclude IP impact
- (V1) Still (after 30+ years), opportunities to support further AWM adoption-adaptation in basin to improve farm income and livelihood with marginal water resources impact (multiple evidence)
- AWM review shows 20-40% current SWC
- TAGMI shows opportunities to outscale
- Water modeling suggests marginal hydrological impact
- (V3) Unmanaged intensification (around SR) can have serious health, well being and ecosystems impacts
- (V3) To derive maximum benefit from bio-physical research evidence (on water use and management) emerging from the VBDC, appropriate complementary policies are needed. Policies at local, regional and national level: implication, engagement with policy makers are different levels (local district assembly, regional assembly, national parliament)
- (All V projects) Tools, models developed to aid decision making and facilitate capacity building.
Question 2 (what can we do)- s
Question 3 (gaps)Group 3
Question 1 (key messages)
Question 2 (what can we do)
Question 3 (gaps)
Group 3
Question 1 (key messages)
Question 2 (what can we do)
Question 3 (gaps)
Synthesis world café (2): Most striking points from each group
Group 1 (FR)- Important participation but difficult to do research practically;
- A lot of communication vis-a-vis policy-makers using media and visa a vis producers (radio, cell phone communication) and organising 'open doors' with mobile caravans to work with
- Lack of integration across projects (too much, too ambitious, not enough real impact on end users)
Group 2 (FR)- Key work on information because it's essential;
- Innovation platforms are a participatory approach to strengthen capacities among value chain actors;
- Weak use of water potential in the basin.
- To do better: We have to produce 'vulgarisation' for farmers to use research results
- Gap: Producers are seen as beneficiaries but not as actors in the process
Group 3 (EN)- IPs should be taken forward and we also identified it as a gap
- There are gaps for the improvement of strengthening evidence
- Handing over, a lot to unpack...
Group 4: (EN)- A lot of evidence and much potential to upscale
- But how do we do this upscaling? Why are some communities - we need relevant policies at relevant levels to be conducive for policy uptake.
- We discussed the evidence of a few studies e.g. small reservoirs - we need meta-data research on what's happening at a larger level and we need to know how many people are supported by these dams and what may be the main constraints / opportunities at the large scale - why are some successful and others not and learn from case studies to gather anecdotal evidence
Group 5 (EN)Final words from Alain for day 2
Good news: I got answer elements from water storage from small reservoirs.Rich notes from world café but generally you have summarised what I could have done.
Two good ideas I heard: the mobile caravan - roving seminar to share results - and access to information and markets / it's the potential of ICTs etc. It's sthg that donors are interested in and that should interest WLE.
I haven't seen the whole coherence but there is tomorrow still so thank you.
Funke's final comments
Thank you all, participants, improvised facilitators, WLE participants etc.We are going to take tonight for additional discussions...
Tomorrow is even more important than today for us.
What are we going to do with these results? We have picked out some ideas - some partners have arrived from Ghana and Burkina Faso and we want to find out more about what we have done and what we can do.
We are expecting some of these people.